If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

wow nice AMD ,,, destroying the integrity of my linux system and no BIG FAT WARNING.
Canonical should warn the user like this: "Warning you will lose your system integrity and operational safety if you install this"

wow nice AMD ,,, destroying the integrity of my linux system and no BIG FAT WARNING.
Canonical should warn the user like this: "Warning you will lose your system integrity and operational safety if you install this"

FAIL!

Blame your package manager. It should install a proper libgl when removing the one belonging to fglrx. But we don't know yet whether this is the issue anyway.

If it is caused by overwritten libgl(x), then the following commands should work: http://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Ubu...talyst.2Ffglrx
As Kano said, the package manager should take care of the libgl(x) alternatives/diversions and I think Ubuntu might (finally) do it correctly now in Oneiric/11.10 with their fglrx-update packages if you want to use the latest Catalyst. Theoretically, the packaging scripts included with the ATI driver installer should work just as well, but that's still just a theory..

nice.. but this means you can not use kubuntu/ubuntu without kanotix scrips... this is very curious

Ubuntu has packaged Catalyst 11.8, which is the last working version on Linux, period. It stops it from overwriting Mesa files with its own like the AMD installer likes to do.

The Ubuntu packages (and Debian's, and RPM Fusion on Fedora) all put FGLRX's libGL into its own folder and set a diversion so the system uses that one instead. If you remove FGLRX later on, your system will still work because no system files were destroyed.

Using AMD's installer is stupid, they mutilate your system, and "when it breaks,you get to keep both pieces". Don't use them. (At least not directly) The buildpkg option might build a distribution package for you which installs in a well-behaved manner, but just using the script and installing it from that is a good way to wreck your system. It's not a matter of, but when. Even if it appears to work at first, an X server or kernel update will come along and break it. (This is another issue, separate from overwriting core system files.